Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?

from the or-is-that-not-possible dept

Ah, the US Chamber of Commerce. The private lobbying giant, which thrives on people confusing it with the US Department of Commerce, is really, really angry about "counterfeits." Of course, one might argue that the only reason its been so successful itself is the likelihood of confusion between it and the US Department of Commerce. But we'll leave that aside for now. The CoC has been a big time supporter of PROTECT IP lately, but apparently is simply unable to make a credible argument in favor of the law.

The group has put out two incredibly misleading videos. The first one focused on a woman in Canada who got bogus drugs that allegedly led to her death. Of course, Protect IP only applies to the US, so the woman in Canada still would have had a problem. And, a larger point is that there are tons of legitimate pharmacies, and it's pretty easy to tell what's legit and what's not. Why this woman was ordering from a questionable pharmacy is never explained. Furthermore, the scare stories about fake drugs killing people tend to be overblown as well. It doesn't do fake pharmacies much good either to kill customers. Finally, the fake drugs issue could be dealt with by legislation that focuses on fake drugs. Not ridiculously broad legislation that encourages censorship and puts the compliance burden and liability on tons of US companies.

The second video was even more ridiculous. Finally moving away from the "fake drugs kill people, and therefore we need to censor the internet to stop people from sharing music" line of argument, it presented some content creators whining about a changing world. Except... as our own research showed, none of the "victims" in the video had their stories fully check out. Two of them had relied on the works of others to build their own careers, while complaining that others might do the same to them. The actress had a bit role in one film nearly a decade ago that got unanimously dreadful reviews ("so bad that it makes you feel like tearing your eyebrows off one by one just to numb the pain") and was complaining that her royalty checks a decade later were too low. The author complained that her industry was suffering because of file sharing -- directly contradicted by other authors and the publishing industry's own statistics.

So... now, the CoC is back to screaming "fake drugs! dead people!" In a piece penned by the CoC's "executive VP" of its "Global Intellectual Property Center," Mark Elliot, the claim is made that if we don't censor the internet, the US won't be able to innovate any more. Complete and utter hogwash.

We need to create an environment that rewards that innovation.

We have one. It's called the marketplace. And you know what doesn't reward innovation? When the legacy companies run to the government to have every new innovative platform -- the player piano, radio, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the mp3 player, the DVR, online video, etc. -- declared infringing and locked up and shut down. But that's what PROTECT IP is designed to do.

For example, imagine spending hundreds of millions of dollars on research for a new lifesaving drug, only to have a counterfeiter make an unregulated, substandard version, with little or no medical value. Imagine that counterfeiter selling this product — with your name on it — online with impunity.

Well, they can't sell it online with impunity. We already have trademark law, which doesn't allow that kind of thing. Why doesn't Elliot mention that? Ah, well, because it undermines his whole argument. Also, the idea that people are confused into buying the fake drugs has little support in reality. Legitimate pharmacies sell the real thing and most people know how to find a legitimate pharmacy. The people seeking alternatives are those priced out of the market -- due in large part to the ridiculously high prices set on drugs due to draconian and excessive IP laws... the same laws Elliot now seeks to make even more draconian.

Imagine, for another example, opening up your own small business, a photography studio. You work by yourself, maybe with one assistant, and take wonderful, high-quality photographs that you sell to advertising agencies or the hometown newspaper. Imagine that you are able to expand — and hire two or three of your neighbors to meet the growing demand.

Then imagine your customers downloading your photos from a website that stole your best images, posted them online and profited from either sales of your photos or advertising revenue from the attraction of your photos.

Imagine being smart about that, and using it to your advantage. Imagine highlighting those who copied your image, and destroying their reputations while building your own. Furthermore, existing copyright law already handles the situation described above. PROTECT IP does nothing to deal with the situation described here.

These rogue websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy put U.S. jobs, consumers and innovation at risk. Last year, these rogue sites stole an estimated $135 billion in sales from legitimate retailers around the globe. They clearly violate the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens by ignoring our trademark and copyright laws.

Funny. The "rogue sites" that have been described in the past were not posting photos. Furthermore, no rogue site "stole" sales from anyone. Why can't the USCoC use the proper language? And that $135 billion number has been debunked so many times -- even by the US government -- that it's sad that its still trotting that out.

The Senate is waiting to vote on the legislation, and the House is due to introduce its version of rogue site legislation in the coming days. We look forward to the enactment of rogue-site legislation this year to protect American jobs and consumers by cutting off the worst online intellectual property thieves from the U.S. marketplace.

Translation: the old dying legacy business, who pay the US Chamber of Commerce to lie in public for them, want a new protectionist, anti-innovation law to shut down any technology that interferes with their business model -- and they believe the best way to do so is to put the entire compliance and legal burden on the upcoming startups who are building the platforms that will disrupt their existing business.

It's a really disgusting and cynical approach from an organization that has a history of such bogus efforts.

Reader Comments

Rogue websites just create different jobs.

'These rogue websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy put U.S. jobs, consumers and innovation at risk. Last year, these rogue sites stole an estimated $135 billion in sales from legitimate retailers around the globe. They clearly violate the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens by ignoring our trademark and copyright laws.'

Re:

Since this is my name I will take a position.

Pass Protect IP, despite all the hand-wringing from those who come up with every "Chicken Little" argument imaginable.

Perhaps if they took the time to consider what a "monopoly" classically comprises they would come to the realization that inventions and works preserved under US law actually do have to compete in the marketplace against the inventions and works of others (who may or may not have preserved rights available to them under law).

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, like those idiots to whom we owe the entire internet infrastructure. They are just panicking and definitely don't know what they are talking about.

Yep, that's us. We built the greatest distribution platform EVER for the music, movie, publishing, etc. industries. We did it at zero cost to them. We labored in obscurity for decades figuring out how to make it work, often funding our experiments out of our own pockets. We created something beyond their wildest dreams. (Surely, nobody thinks that the myopic dimwits in these legacy industries could have POSSIBLY imagined the Internet, let alone created it. Such work is far beyond their pitifully feeble intellects.)

Anyway, so we made it possible for them to do incredible things...and make a lot of money doing so, by the way. All they had to was adapt, to change, to embrace.

And as it turns out, this is ALSO beyond their pitifully feeble intellects.

So I look forward to their extinction. They're already obsolete, it just remains to wait for them to die off.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Then it must make you truly thrilled to know that more than one of think you are an ass kissing dipwad (and a talentless schmuck). Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and you have possibly kissed a few of them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Then it must make you truly thrilled to know that more than one of think you are an ass kissing dipwad (and a talentless schmuck). Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and you have possibly kissed a few of them.

Heh. You really shouldn't say "opinions are like assholes" right after bragging that you and some other guys share one. You make this way too easy dude.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Perhaps if they took the time to consider what a "monopoly" classically comprises they would come to the realization that inventions and works preserved under US law actually do have to compete in the marketplace against the inventions and works of others (who may or may not have preserved rights available to them under law)"

By all means, hand the Big Bad MPAA and The Dragon (RIAA) the keys to the kingdom. Not only will they fight "crime" as a hard hitting duo, but once in a lifetime, you'll see why Evil never wins.

Re:

You didn't read the article did you? The question in the title really is genuine. Can they do it without lying? The answer is right here:

...the old dying legacy business, who pay the US Chamber of Commerce to lie in public for them...

So apparently no, they cannot. That is Mike's point. He's taken a position, and that position runs thusly:

the only reason [the USCoC] been so successful itself is the likelihood of confusion between it and the US Department of Commerce.... The CoC...is simply unable to make a credible argument in favor of the law.

The group has put out two incredibly misleading videos.

We all know you want to take apart Mike any chance you can get. I'd love to see a relevant, thorough and totally awesome dismantling, but the only dismantling I see is that of IP maximalists. Do try to put in more effort than this in the future.

Re: Re:

". The first one focused on a woman in Canada who got bogus drugs that allegedly led to her death. Of course, Protect IP only applies to the US, so the woman in Canada still would have had a problem."

Welcome to intellectually dishonest at it's best. The suggest is because you cannot prevent the death in Canada by US law, that you shouldn't do anything to address the same potential situation in the US. Canada has a similar system in the pharma field as the US, and similar standards. Is there something magical about the US that says this cannot happen in the US?

" Except... as our own research showed, none of the "victims" in the video had their stories fully check out. "

Another one of those blatant pieces of Masnick speak. When you look at the comments in the post he links to (on his own site) you will see plenty of valid objections, and examples of where his "debunking" pretty much bunked itself. Is that not a little intellectually dishonest? Why can't he point to an independent party on this?

"It's a really disgusting and cynical approach from an organization that has a history of such bogus efforts."

In the end, what is disgusting to me is someone who so hates patents and copyright that they are willing to go to any length to disprove it, even as their own debunking is proven to be bunk.

Re: Re: Re:

See now that was better. Garbage reasoning, selective quoting, and utterly useless, but much better than previous.

The suggest is because you cannot prevent the death in Canada by US law, that you shouldn't do anything to address the same potential situation in the US

This was selective quoting. If you had read the rest of the paragraph, here's a list of other relevant quotes you would have found from the same paragraph you obviously started reading:
** "And, a larger point is that there are tons of legitimate pharmacies, and it's pretty easy to tell what's legit and what's not"
** "Why this woman was ordering from a questionable pharmacy is never explained"
** "It doesn't do fake pharmacies much good either to kill customers."
** "Finally, the fake drugs issue could be dealt with by legislation that focuses on fake drugs. Not ridiculously broad legislation that encourages censorship and puts the compliance burden and liability on tons of US companies."

Another one of those blatant pieces of Masnick speak....etc

This paragraph isn't even responding to the the quote you had above it. Mike talks about a previous CoC propaganda piece that uses people whose arguments were bunk and how he found all that out, and you come back with "Yeah but why didn't he cite a third party that also did that research?" Really? The only objections I found on the linked to post were people (maybe yourself) claiming something about business models. No one objected to the actual research Mike did about any of the participants works and lives. If business model objections are what you want to talk about, that's fine, but it's not what this conversation has been about up to this point.

In the end, what is disgusting to me is someone who so hates patents and copyright...et al

I'm still waiting for the debunking to be proven bunk. Mike shows plenty of legitimate studies done by third-parties. The MPAA, RIAA, CoC, etc. all have studies done by people paid for by them, and they all turn out to be such bunk, that using their own methodologies shows that they are worse than the cure they proffer.

I feel a little better that you tried, but you still have a lot of work to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

** "And, a larger point is that there are tons of legitimate pharmacies, and it's pretty easy to tell what's legit and what's not"

Really? How?

** "Why this woman was ordering from a questionable pharmacy is never explained"

Maybe because they didn't have a sign saying "This is a questionable pharmacy"

** "It doesn't do fake pharmacies much good either to kill customers."

How much does it cost a fly-by-night operation to rename itself and move do a different site under a different name

** "Finally, the fake drugs issue could be dealt with by legislation that focuses on fake drugs. Not ridiculously broad legislation that encourages censorship and puts the compliance burden and liability on tons of US companies."

The point, simpleton, is that "legislation that focuses on fake drugs" is not conclusive on rogue pharmacies outside the US.

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, pointing out that they were being dishonest about her nationality is intellectually dishonest. That makes perfect sense...

In the comments on the post he links to there are literally zero objections that held up as valid over the course of the conversations there. I know, I checked. There's actually a whole thread of someone making very similar claims to yours though, that 'all of these arguments have already been debunked' without actually supporting that position with any reasoning or references to prior conversations. The poster just assumes this to be true a priori, much like you do. Almost makes me wonder if you're the same person.

Being against PROTECT IP is not the same thing as being against patents and copyrights in general.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Her nationally isn't relevant, except to say within a system comparable to the US system, people are dying from fake meds.

In the other post, Mike weasel worded his way along and ignored points made, plenty of people piled on and tries to shut certain posters down, but remarkably, there is enough there to show that the debunking is, well, bunk.

Most importantly, pointing to your own work as some form of justification or proof of fact (when it is just opinion on a blog, after all) isn't really helping, is it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are right her nationality is irrelevant and statistically her case also is irrelevant, let gets the number of people who died for fake drugs and the ones saved by gray area drugs and see what that means why can't those numbers appear?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The video is very vague. Who exactly did the investigation, what exactly were their medical qualifications? What doctors confirmed the death and its cause? Was there a police report? Are authorities investigating the site? What site was it?

Is this an anecdotal event or are there any credible statistics on this problem?

Laws banning pharmacies from selling drugs tainted with deadly substances that shouldn't be there already exist. The solution to this alleged problem isn't a new law, it's the enforcement of the existing laws that we have. It's law enforcement officials doing their job and enforcing the laws that we already have.

New laws don't solve problems when the problem is that our already existing laws aren't being properly enforced. It's like with gun laws. Whenever someone illegally obtains and uses a gun and someone gets hurt, politicians are quick to think that passing new gun laws is the solution. But those people who misused the weapon already broke several laws with their misuse. What's a new law going to do? It's simply going to harm law abiding citizens, criminals will simply break the law regardless, they're already breaking several laws, what difference is another law to break going to do?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also, why should we consider the Chamber of Commerce, a trade organization, to be interested in consumers? Why shouldn't we assume that it's self interested, like any business. Why should we pass public policy laws based on its opinion and some video that it put together?

Re: Re: Re:

"Welcome to intellectually dishonest at it's best. The suggest is because you cannot prevent the death in Canada by US law, that you shouldn't do anything to address the same potential situation in the US. Canada has a similar system in the pharma field as the US, and similar standards. Is there something magical about the US that says this cannot happen in the US?"

Counterfeits are not a real problem today, they were dealt with in the past and for some reason they are not a problem today, what is a problem is the gray area which are true drugs being sold at a fraction of the price because they are alternatives to other more expensive ones or have their patents revoked elsewhere so people can actually be able to buy them, so no you are dishonest, you don't acknowledge the facts, one women died and that is sad but probably it would have happened anyway, and it happens more when people are priced out of healthcare and that happens a lot in the vicious cicle of monopoly raising prices and government paying the bill with tax payers money without checking the prices or being really able to say no, because you dishonest people will always claim somebody is dying.

That is why I'm learning to produce drugs own my own, that way I won't need to "buy" gray area drugs or risk buying a fake one just because I couldn't afford one.

I may die or I may not, but at least finally I will be retaking some measure of control over my own life, just like I took control over my entertainment and will not pay a dime to labels, studios, publishers or any other gate keeper there, they can all go out of business I don't care.

"Another one of those blatant pieces of Masnick speak. When you look at the comments in the post he links to (on his own site) you will see plenty of valid objections, and examples of where his "debunking" pretty much bunked itself. Is that not a little intellectually dishonest? Why can't he point to an independent party on this?"

Yah really, why can't the industry point to other studies?

What it is disgusting to me is that people who love monopolies go to great lenghts to lie, cheat and obscure everything.

But rest assured I will never respect your monopoly, I will die first.

Re: Re: Re:

It's pretty clear you're either:

1. A failed creator who had to go get a day job despite having so much more opportunity to succeed these days,
2. An obsolete middleman desperate to keep their job, or
3. A paid shill whose job is simply to trash every TD article

Given that, why would anybody take anything you say seriously?

If the three options don't accurately describe you, feel free to add your own. Try to have the guts to be honest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"...and you are a fool who can't think past your own bias to consider a different point of view."

This is a common and rather weak response that completely fails to consider the possibility that I did consider your point of view, weighed up the info on both sides of the debate and then decided you're wrong.

"News flash for you jackoff, not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill."

That's not much of a newsflash, which is why I suggested two other options and asked you to pick one or add another. But you didn't, so I'm going to continue assuming you fit into one of those three descriptions. You may not be a shill but you clearly have an undisclosed vested interest in maintaining or strengthening current IP laws. It'd just be nice to have some honesty on that front.

Re:

You know...a conversation usually starts with a question. Certainly he poses the question as the headline (which I am sure is the only thing you read) but then in the post he places his opinion. So desperate you are to discount Mike without any counter-arguments. So who is the weasel? Discuss!

Re:

As the monopolies being created are as real as communism is in China or Cuba. in fact come to think of it they are exactly the same as communism therefore are all those who want ACTA or protect IP communists?

Watch for the upcoming House Bill

the House is due to introduce its version of rogue site legislation in the coming days

Two points:
1) Please let us know when this is introduced so we can let our reps know our feelings about it. I wonder who the sponsor will be.
2) (a little off-topic, but oh well) How come the CoC is privy to what bills are going to be introduced when? It seems like that gives them a lobbying leg up over the rest of us citizens.

Hmmm...

"Last year, these rogue sites stole an estimated $135 billion in sales from legitimate retailers around the globe. They clearly violate the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens by ignoring our trademark and copyright laws."

His argument is that the U.S. needs a new law, because existing laws are being broken! In what possible universe does that make any sense at all?

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

Or

It doesn't matter if you bought it, you can't use it as you wish because all you have is a *license* to the content, not the content itself. Oh, bought a copy? Well, you still don't have a right to download that content again, because all you bought was the content, not a license to the content.

In other words, if we are to believe Big Content, the answer to any question is to pay Big Content more/again/often.

In this particular case, the answer is that we should spend OUR tax dollars to solve THEIR problem, but they don't have to pay one single dime more to support the effort.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

I don't feel like paying for that movie, I also don't feel like watching it so I steal it, I also don't feel like giving money to people with low moral that help finance drug cartels, pedophilies, murderers, fraudsters and so forth so I steal it.

The real thruth is I don't care about you, your product and sales, you can start begging now.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

If you wanted to steal a movie, there are already laws that cover it. For instance, just to steal their movie you'd have to break & enter the property, then probably you would force the lock of the safe containing the reels for the movie. That's some sort of unauthorized access right there. Then, of course, there are laws against the unauthorized substraction of the physical object itself.

Re: Hmmm...

"His argument is that the U.S. needs a new law, because existing laws are being broken! In what possible universe does that make any sense at all?"

Laws are often broken because they are written in a manner that makes them difficult to enforce, they have been limited by court decisions, or they they leave enough grey area that people are exploiting them. New laws are often a restating of existing laws, a narrowing of definitions, clearing up the processes, etc.

It's like taking a law that says "you should not drive too fast" and narrowing it down to "you may not drive faster than 65 MPH". Is the new law meaningless, or is it easier to judge and enforce?

Re: Re: Hmmm...

"Laws are often broken because they are written in a manner that makes them difficult to enforce, they have been limited by court decisions, or they they leave enough grey area that people are exploiting them. New laws are often a restating of existing laws, a narrowing of definitions, clearing up the processes, etc."

While probably true, I think you're ignoring the reasons *why* a law might be difficult to enforce, or *why* it's been limited by a court, etc. You're assuming it's because the original law is vague - while I'm sure that's sometimes true, it's certainly not the case here. The fact that the copyright/trademark/whatever is difficult to enforce is what applies here.

Given that I don't think your analogy of the speed limit really fits this specific situation... but if we try to make it fit, then it seems to me that PROTECT-IP is more about trying to remove cars from the road just because some drivers speed an the police can't catch them all, than clarifying what the speed limit is.

Re: Re: Hmmm...

What is with you and the speed limit BS?

Copyright is not a car speeding, you cannot see every instance of infringement and even something that appears as infringement could be legal.

The real problem with copyright is copyright itself that it is a vague law that cannot and will never be enforceable, the day that happens is the day of a police state so powerful it will go down in flames like any other dictatorship.

You think I will respect any rights of a schmuck that believes he have some special powers to dictate to me what I can and cannot do inside my own home?

Right not happening.

And I want to see which politician will be the first to say that people have no rights in their own homes anymore.

Re: Re: Hmmm...

Speeding can kill people, maybe you. I had three childhood friends die in accidents related to speeding before I graduated college. The government has a stake in enforcing speeding laws to protect us all.

Copyright infringement isn't going to kill anyone. The only people protected by government enforcing copyright laws are the Content owners.

Certainly content owners need protecting, but (presumably if 135 billion is at stake) they have the money to fund the efforts through existing laws to protect themselves. If they cannot, then they can do something else.

Seriously with the economy circling the drain, why are we increasing government enforcement of laws that do not benefit the economy as a whole? If you want to pass a law like this, pass the laws to make the content owners pay for the law.

I am a content owner, and I want no part of this. Nothing here is going to increase my revenue, it is only going to annoy me and raise my taxes. This law ISN'T going to protect my content. It isn't going to protect ANYBODY'S content.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...

I own an open source project, and base my consulting income on applying this technology on various projects. I build (along with others in the company I work for) proprietary tools to manage, version, develop, and deploy policy updates to applications (based on the my underlying, open source technology).

I am also a content owner/creator

I take Microsoft and Adobe products, paid for mind you, and create scarcities with them. I am a software architect and database developer. I create content. I am paid a handsome salary to create million dollar software for some big names. They in turn, get to keep the software I create, and make money by not having to spend the millions of dollars to acquire said software, only to pay my salary to create the product, and they keep the patents and copyrights on anything I create, similar to an artist, in essence, I am an artist, I just use 1's and 0's to create with. The difference is that you cannot copy my product, in a way, it has security (DRM) built in, you have to login to the software to be able to use it. In theory, you could copy the front end code and backend database to another server, but logistically, you cannot obtain a complete copy for unintended use. This is called a business model, and quite a good one, I think. I get paid to organize 1's and 0's into content that has ROI, and a big one. The company is happy, I am happy, everyone is happy.

My point is, that over the 15 years I have been creating software, I have had to evolve my business model to ensure the scarcity (my talent to create) remains viable, even with the advent of digital infringement. It was an easy migration that evolved over time, and I just went with the flow. Instead of building stand-alone programming functionality, I isolated the scarcity to provide me with a handsome salary. (not including bonuses, stock options, and other incetives :))

To expect the market to 'owe' you a living for something you created years ago is just plain insane. Regurgitating nonsensical redux of 'Planet of the Apes' does not give you a free pass by Go, collect 200 million dollars. Adapt to survive, like everyone else has to.

Re: I am also a content owner/creator

Was your rant directed at me? If so, it would seem you didn't follow my posts very closely, as I am obviously against PROTECT IP.

I would like to point out that I put my work into Open Source to protect my work from Companies and Governments that would isolate my work in a box as a proprietary or semi-proprietary asset.

I built the first version of my technology while working for a company contracted with Texas. I left that company and contracted with the next on the same project and built the second version of the Technology as a contractor. When they felt it was "good enough" they cut me loose. They went on to deploy my technology in two other states, without any money or credit to me. Fine.

In the meantime I have to eat, so I end up contracting on another project, and I build the technology from the ground up. We had a verbal agreement that I would get rights to use the technology after the project. Don't take verbal agreements.

So I build the technology from scratch. Again. And I work for a company that deploys the technology in three states, and more on the way. Still I am only working for (as you say) a very nice salary. After 5.5 years I leave them.

BUT THIS TIME, the technology was an open source project. All of my effort is still mine. Yeah I am sharing it, but the key is that I can leverage it into other jobs, other contracts, other projects. This is KEY.

I am managing to Keep Control of my work by freely sharing my work. I don't need PROTECT IP. In fact, the whole mindset behind PROTECT IP is fundamentally opposed to how I am succeeding in my industry!

I have some proprietary tools that should make me money. And of course the contracting pays very well. But at no time to I have to DRM anything or demand take downs or sue anyone to make a very comfortable living.

So I don't think you need to rant at me, if you even intended to (I am not sure you did).

Re: Re: I am also a content owner/creator

Re: Re: I am also a content owner/creator

i did follow your post, and comments, and found it motivating enough to support your position, and use it as a chance to offer another equal point that supported yours, and explained my own to show that it is not an issue with copyright/wrong, but an issue of business model. I cannot fathom why the copywrong feel entitled to be paid for something they create ad infinium, whereas developers like ourselves must adapt, and understand that we do not have the privilege of government granted welfare that entitles them to income beyond the ability to actually create.

Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

The first one focused on a woman in Canada who got bogus drugs that allegedly led to her death. Of course, Protect IP only applies to the US, so the woman in Canada still would have had a problem.

What credit card did she use to pay for her purchase of poison masquerading as medicine? Under the Protect IP Act, that "pharmacy" wouldn't be advertising so she might not even have know about it; removed from US based search engines, so she wouldn't be able to access it; and wouldn't be able to accept payment from US-based credit card companies, so she wouldn't have been able to purchase it. Other than that, you're right.

Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

What is your concern here? I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with what happened to this woman. Is the industry really lamenting the loss of this one person? Or are they glad they can use her story to promote their monopoly? Exploitation as clear as day along with only half the truth.

Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

What is your concern here? I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with what happened to this woman. Is the industry really lamenting the loss of this one person? Or are they glad they can use her story to promote their monopoly? Exploitation as clear as day along with only half the truth.

So when an example of a situation comes along where a person may not have died if a law was on the books... you think it should be what?? Ignored? Seems like all that does is to hide all of the examples and "citation needed" so frequently demanded by opposing parties.

Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

Depends, is that example relevant, what is the pros and cons, would any enforcement be effective of stopping that?

Protect IP act is not effective, but it brings a lot of burdens not only to companies but to society itself and you want that because you say it will help without showing any proof that it really works?

Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

And if no one were ever allowed online at all there would be zero, absolutely zero, deaths due to sales of poison masquerading as medicine. So what's your point, really, that the ends always justify the means?

If this were really about fake drugs then "the fake drugs issue could be dealt with by legislation that focuses on fake drugs." We're not getting that though. I wonder why... (Hint: it's because it's not really about fake drugs at all)

Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

I actually use non-U.S. resources pretty frequently, without any problems. Sometimes IP sniffers smell me out as being in Texas, but a run through a proxy fixes them up.

In countries where the government becomes oppressive, these techniques are in wide use by everyone. PROTECT IP is likely to build that market here. Nothing will change except how one goes about doing what they want to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

Really? So do you a non-US payment processor too? Because even if it's issued by the Bank of Lagos, that Visa card in your wallet is a US based processor. Which search engine do you most often use? And while you may be an exception, I'm willing to bet that cutting off access to US based payment processors would effective kill many, if not most pirate sites. Throw in ad networks and search engines it's no wonder the freeloaders and apologists see Protect IP as such a threat.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

I use bitcoin when I can. Obviously not as much as I'd like, and they have their issues (hording, unstable value).

And you are right, cutting off US based processors would damage most companies.... Until some other company rose to fill in the gap.

I don't think Protect IP will do anything to curb infringement. I do think it will damage privacy and cost ISPs tons of money, reduce the quality of our Internet access even further, and soak up even more of our Tax Dollars, and all for the sake of tilting at windmills.

Are you going to seriously believe people cannot code around any law? Do you know anything about encryption, distributed computing, and the falling cost of disk storage?

Are you even aware that (should the trend that has held since 1980 until now) by 2020 (in 9 years) you can expect to buy for $100 a storage device that can hold 14.4 YEARS of HD Video? That by 2024 that same $100 will by you a storage device that can hold 10X that much? Seriously, $100 will buy you storage that will hold a 145 YEARS of HD video!!!http://brownzings.blogspot.com/2009/11/disruptive-change.html

Even if you shut down the networks completely, there is no way you can stop people from sharing content when the mechanism for doing so is as abundant and easy to access as air and water!

So no, my disdain for this law isn't about being a freeloader or an apologist for free loaders. It is about having enough brain cells firing to understand how bad a policy this represents.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

And you are right, cutting off US based processors would damage most companies.... Until some other company rose to fill in the gap.

I don't see it. In order to do that a company would have to decide to build a business model to facilitate unlawful transactions. Credit cards are still issued by banks which have to be mindful of who they partner with. Then there is the issue of sufficient market penetration to make such a venture worthwhile. It's just not there.

I don't think Protect IP will do anything to curb infringement. I do think it will damage privacy and cost ISPs tons of money, reduce the quality of our Internet access even further, and soak up even more of our Tax Dollars, and all for the sake of tilting at windmills.

I disagree. The number of people who subscribe to pirate sites or download or stream from ad supported sites will certainly decrease if credit cards can't be used. If ads can't be placed that doesn't make establishing a pirate site a viable venture. We'll know the true impact within a year of so, but your suggestion that it won't do anything is just wrong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

I don't see it. In order to do that a company would have to decide to build a business model to facilitate unlawful transactions. Credit cards are still issued by banks which have to be mindful of who they partner with. Then there is the issue of sufficient market penetration to make such a venture worthwhile. It's just not there.

Uhhhh, no. You see, not just unlawful transactions will be banned by this law.

Any financial institution that provides hassle free transactions to buy goods from whom I wish to buy goods will have an advantage over companies bound by PROTECT IP. I don't know *how* money will be exchanged should this law come fully and and even violently into effect. But I can safely bet that money will be exchanged. This may be what is required for bitcoin to take off.

I disagree. The number of people who subscribe to pirate sites or download or stream from ad supported sites will certainly decrease if credit cards can't be used. If ads can't be placed that doesn't make establishing a pirate site a viable venture. We'll know the true impact within a year of so, but your suggestion that it won't do anything is just wrong.

You are living in a fantasy world. Heck, you may even be the kind of person who believes if we preach at kids that they won't have sex!

You seem to think that media is being exchanged for money, when most file sharers do it to, well, share! And if you encrypt all your transactions, how will PROTECT IP know who's ads to cut off? How are they going to cut off ads from a site that is okay with being paid in "services in kind", or in Pounds, or in Rubles?

What happens when the ability to share information of any kind is encrypted into a distributed network of storage, where every contributor holds something (they know not what), and they share what they hold (they know not what), but as a benefit of say 10X the storage they contribute, they get 1X of redundant cloud storage for their data?

All anyone has to have in this cloud is a key, and various nodes will contribute various encrypted chunks to form the data needed, (once decrypted). Dynamic routing and multiple encryption steps could effectively make data removal from such a cloud very difficult. Shifting loads among nodes could effectively distribute the liability to the cloud.

Your own use of such a system would be clearly legal. You are providing storage to allow you to put your information and applications into a cloud. That others might use the existence of the cloud to commit crimes isn't any more your fault that the fact that your job at the electric plant or newspaper, or police station, or construction site also allows others to commit crimes.

By 2020, when a TB worth of storage will run you about 20 cents, how can you claim that any law of this sort is going to prevent the exchange of information (infringing or not)? How much you want to bet that kids won't have disks for 5 bucks that have ALL the music of the last 50 years, and trade them with each other for the heck of it? Oh, but that will be encrypted behind a copy of all their favorite (or possibly interesting) web sites!

Does PROTECT IP prevent anyone from talking to anyone else? If not, then it isn't going to stop sharing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

"By 2020, when a TB worth of storage will run you about 20 cents, how can you claim that any law of this sort is going to prevent the exchange of information (infringing or not)? How much you want to bet that kids won't have disks for 5 bucks that have ALL the music of the last 50 years, and trade them with each other for the heck of it? Oh, but that will be encrypted behind a copy of all their favorite (or possibly interesting) web sites!"

Paul, when will you learn that the costs of a movie isn't in the replication, but in the production. Avatar didn't cost 300 million to make DVD copies, it cost that to develop them technology and produce the movie. The cost of storage isn't an issue (and pretty hasn't been for a long time). When you can get DVD movies replicated in retail cases with 3 color label insert and color printing on the disc for way less than $1 a piece (in even smaller quantities) you know that the cost of producing the product alone isn't the big end of it.

Don't fall for the Techdirt bullshit. Marginal costs have not been the big end of the retail costs of movies of music for almost 2 decades. If you only look there, you will always thing "free is better", but it never addresses the huge up front costs to create the stuff to start with.

As a side note, cloud computing is very likely to get hit with many copyright challenges in the future, and just like file locker sites like Hotfile, are likely to get reamed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

"Paul, when will you learn that the costs of a movie isn't in the replication, but in the production. Avatar didn't cost 300 million to make DVD copies, it cost that to develop them technology and produce the movie. The cost of storage isn't an issue (and pretty hasn't been for a long time). When you can get DVD movies replicated in retail cases with 3 color label insert and color printing on the disc for way less than $1 a piece (in even smaller quantities) you know that the cost of producing the product alone isn't the big end of it."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

Do you seriously think that I was implying that all the music of the last 50 years will only cost 5 dollars to have produced???

PROTECT IP is trying to control *sharing*. The cost of sharing has nothing to do with the cost of production. Nothing I said says any thing or implies anything about the cost of production,

Cloud computing cannot be stopped, and shouldn't be stopped. If we stopped every innovation because it broke someone's approach to making a living, we would still be plowing with sticks (or maybe not even that! Think of the hunters!). The very idea that we are not going to put our information securely in the cloud, where it can be accessed by any device we want, where we can gather information from around the world, process it, and make decisions against it in real time .... Just because of copyright .... HA

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

Paul, the problem is that supporters of piracy (such as yourself) just don't seem to understand the idea of a diminished marketplace. No, you cannot attribute any single lost sale to a "share" (aka, piracy), but clearly if a significant portion of the population are obtaining material illegally rather than paying for it, the marketplace is diminished. Just as the recorded music industry about it.

People pay for the production by buying the end product. If they don't buy the end product, but instead choose to pirate it, then there is less money to pay for the production costs.

If you can't grasp that simple piece, the rest is pretty much lost on you.

As for cloud computing, I again liken it to a really fast car. Just because we can build a 1001 horsepower street car (Bugatti EB) doesn't mean you can suddenly drive 200 MPH through the middle of New York. The ability to do something doesn't make it legal, right, or appropriate. So sorry, the "it cannot be stopped" argument never flies with me, it's a bullshit excuse for people not wanting to follow the law because they are getting a benefit illegally obtaining content. The risk of cloud computing is that it becomes a defacto sharing system, which would make it as illegal as Napster.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

But you have:

1) An infinitesimal marginal cost to thanks to distribution technology
2) Drastically falling sunk costs thanks to increased availability of tools
3) Almost no barrier to entering the market thanks to both
4) Considerable indirect revenue potential thanks to the high value of attention and the inherent consumerism of fandom

That is a clear recipe for the price to drop to zero. Can't you see it's inevitable?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

"Paul, the problem is that supporters of piracy (such as yourself) just don't seem to understand the idea of a diminished marketplace. No, you cannot attribute any single lost sale to a "share" (aka, piracy), but clearly if a significant portion of the population are obtaining material illegally rather than paying for it, the marketplace is diminished. Just as the recorded music industry about it."

First off, I am not a supporter of piracy. I am not a supporter of intentional stupidity either. There are simply some things you just can't make laws against. They are just too easy to do without any clear harm being done.

You claim the marketplace is diminished by illegal sharing, but every study (even those done by Big Content) show that people that share the most media also buy the most media.

People like me, who never download music, are also the people who never *buy* music. I think I have bought maybe 10 or 15 CDs, records, albums, tapes, etc. IN MY ENTIRE LIFE (and I am over 50). I have never used iTunes, and I have never bought a digital song.

What good am I to the Industry? Seriously, I am no pirate, but when a typical pirate buys 4 or 5 CDs/DVDs/Songs per month legitimately, who is advancing the Industry?

Of course all of this is beside the point. If you think it is terrible that people have hateful thoughts, then pass a law against it. But it isn't going to do any good. The point I am making is that Technology is advancing to the point that you CAN NOT STOP Sharing, either legitimate sharing nor illegal sharing.

"People pay for the production by buying the end product. If they don't buy the end product, but instead choose to pirate it, then there is less money to pay for the production costs. ... If you can't grasp that simple piece, the rest is pretty much lost on you."

Right. So when I watch broadcast T.V. I am not paying for the production of content? Or when I listen to the Radio? (Not that I do, because I don't want commercials. I am a podcast guy (all ultra legal, you know!)). But the point is that there are many ways to support the production of content besides buying the end product. Claiming that is the only way to support production of content is perhaps an unintentional falsehood, but it is false none the less.

"As for cloud computing, I again liken it to a really fast car. Just because we can build a 1001 horsepower street car (Bugatti EB) doesn't mean you can suddenly drive 200 MPH through the middle of New York. The ability to do something doesn't make it legal, right, or appropriate. So sorry, the "it cannot be stopped" argument never flies with me, it's a bullshit excuse for people not wanting to follow the law because they are getting a benefit illegally obtaining content. The risk of cloud computing is that it becomes a defacto sharing system, which would make it as illegal as Napster."

You are plenty full of bullshit yourself. Cloud computing has thousands if not millions of uses besides sharing content, which will become a meaninglessly small percentage of cloud computing in the future. You clearly know nothing about technology, but let me clue you in: People can only enjoy 24 hours of content per day. Period. There is a bandwidth limit to our attention. However, the products of computation are nearly infinite. From managing your finances, to scheduling your time, to informing you about new products and current events.... The Cloud isn't limited to how much information can be processed *for* a person.

You should say, "Just because we can build a rocket that can take us into orbit, we shouldn't because it isn't safe to go that fast through the middle of New York."

The very same technology that even makes it POSSIBLE to produce a film like Avatar increasingly makes it impossible to stop SHARING Avatar. You don't get one without the other. You want to stop technology because you find it annoying or that it makes it hard to make money, great! That is YOUR problem.

It simply isn't MY problem. I don't really CARE if you have a hard time making money if sharing is too easy. Why? Because the same tech that makes sharing easy is the same tech that is advancing everything in entertainment, in medicine, in politics, in democracy, in our standard of living, etc! You want to toss everything in the trash because "the 'it cannot be stopped' argument never flies with me, its a bullshit excuse for people not wanting to follow the law..."

Well I call 'bullshit' on that. I believe copyright has been extended to the point that I have no respect for it, this is true. BUT EVEN IF I CARED, I don't think you can do ANYTHING to stop sharing. What you can do is try and wreak the Internet, waste Tax Dollars, all for the blind hope this will help an Industry that refuses to wake up and smell the coffee.

TSA has cost tens of billions of dollars, and still fails 70 percent of the unannounced tests to see if they can catch weapons going on planes. They have NEVER caught an actual terrorist.

What I do believe is that the government can waste my money on Protect IP.

It is telling that you are a supporter, and have yet to make any point that proves this law will do any good. Forget that I don't care about copyright. Just explain *how* PROTECT IP is going to be able to sharing when sharing is going to be so easy?

I don't have much hope here...

" Just explain *how* PROTECT IP is going to be able to stop sharing when sharing is going to be so easy?"

I think that is the question that no maximalist can truly answer.

The fact is, no matter how many reports show it, no matter how much the info tells people that the economics of piracy are simple, the fact is, the battle continues.

I just hope that in the future, when copyright and patents are not barriers to entry as they are now, when we have a security force not in the hands of the government, when we have an easy to access wiki that explains the rights of people to government, and a police force that knows how to uphold the constitution than being bullies with badges...

The world will be that much better off because the technology will assist people in making money, not used to prevent more methods of innovating.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

I agree, probably 90% of the p2p out there isn't even based on ads, or monetary gain. Even if the copywrong's get their way with PROTECT IP, it will do nothing to stem the distribution of content, it will only educate the uneducated on how to use proxies, dns spoofing, vpns and the like.

If so much money is allegedly made off these ad based p2p sites, then why doesn't the MAFIAA build a few thousand? it might offset the ludicrous 135 billion you claim in losses.

You know what other industry provides the same GDP to the US as the entertainment industry? The pet industry, yup, that's right, all those leashes, and poochie pedicures provide the equal amount of business to the bottom line, sad when you think about it..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

Besides that one can easily bypass any filters using math, any file can be represented by an exponentiation, the problem is that it takes time to decode that today, but it may not in the future with graphics cards becoming so powerful, will the entertainment industry try to block math on the internet?

LoL

Not to mention that in the future thousands of fans could just point their cellphones at anything and create a live stream that would be 3D, that is thanks to things like Photosynth from Microsoft that since it saw it couldn't use the technology directly it open sourced maybe hopping to see what others could do with it.

That same technology can be used to reconstruct video and audio, so will the government revoke fair use?

Since any piece of image or audio can be used to reconstruct the entiret of the work if enough of it is found?

Also that technology can be used to enhance videos and audio.

What happens when people start trading frames, bits and pieces and not entire works since they won't need the entire film to be download but only pieces?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...

"Imagine, for another example, opening up your own small business, a photography studio. You work by yourself, maybe with one assistant, and take wonderful, high-quality photographs that you sell to advertising agencies or the hometown newspaper. Imagine that you are able to expand — and hire two or three of your neighbors to meet the growing demand. "

Re:

The thing I don't understand is why they thing they will lose everything, if that was true why do restaurant chains don't have monopolies on fry chicken, pizzas, hamburgers and so forth?

Is MacDonald's in risk because of Subway or TacoBell?

If a person spends all of his time worrying about what others are doing than he is probably not working to create something he just don't have the time and will not make money, but it still expects others to pay him, I call those people bums.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

completely missing the point... the general public are the people who are going to be confused and misled because the name "US Chamber of Commerce" implies falsely that this is a government organisation.

Re: Re:

completely missing the point... the general public are the people who are going to be confused and misled because the name "US Chamber of Commerce" implies falsely that this is a government organisation.

The USCoC doesn't lobby the general public. They lobby law and policy makers. How hard is that to fathom?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Lobbying goes back 200 years."

So does copyright, and they've both grown into massive, bloated, corrupt, self-serving, abusive monsters that work to the exact opposite of their original intent, i.e. to benefit society. Just because something is protected, doesn't mean it's right or that people should just "deal with it".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

""Lobbying goes back 200 years.""

So does copyright, and they've both grown into massive, bloated, corrupt, self-serving, abusive monsters that work to the exact opposite of their original intent, i.e. to benefit society. Just because something is protected, doesn't mean it's right or that people should just "deal with it".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.

Seriously. Let's let the Chamber of Commerce have their number. 135 billion would have gone to the Movie Studios and Record Labels and Publishers if we just choked down on copyright more.

This means this bill is going to take 135 billion that would have been spent in your local farmer's market, your local auto repair shop, buying kids lunches, and feeding families and divert it away to the content companies.

Instead of feeding families (with 25 percent of children under 6 in the U.S. living in poverty) we are going take out of the market 135 billion and divert it to companies like Disney (who famously can't make a dime to pay royalties to artists no matter how much money comes their way).

Instead of paying for healthcare, families are going to pay 135 billion to Hollywood.

Instead of companies hiring people locally with the income from the 135 billion in sales currently spent in the market place for various tangible goods (money that gets spent over and over as goods have to be manufactured, transported, sold, and maintained), we want to take that SAME 135 billion and give it to industries that will NOT hire anyone extra. Their product already exists, and being digital, requires no significant extra labor to produce the additional copies transported over the Internet. NONE of this 135 billion will be local sales (well, assuming you don't live inside the Disney compound or some place similar), and ALL of the 135 billion will be sucked from our communities.

But of course, since 135 Billion would have been spent multiple times within communities, leading to a multiplier effect. The Chamber of Commerce is quite quick to apply such effects when estimating the impact of spending or business in a community. For example, the CoC stated

Using their multiplier of 2.70266 (which HAS to be valid, being such an exact number!) the 135 billion removed from our communities will actually cost our communities 364.86 billion in terms of lost wages, lost sales, lost net worth, and lost jobs.

This is such a good idea, I am absolutely thrilled to believe these numbers!

In this Economy, we do NOT need ~365 billion wasted in our communities on food, health care, jobs, and commerce when it can be stashed away into the coffers of (for the most part) a very few big Content Companies as a purely ADDITIONAL fee for work already produced as a product today.

Note that none of these calculations include the COST to the tax payer to execute PROTECT IP without a dime of funding from these same content companies.

Re: Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.

Paul, an amusing story, but you have to know that it doesn't line up with "this week on Techdirt". Mike has been spooting all sorts of nonsense about "valuations" and "losses" that are completely meaningless. A few weeks back he suggesting that money paid to parties in lawsuits somehow is shovelled into a furnace and burned, because it never comes back into the economy ever.

Re: Re: Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.

Money paid to corporations in lawsuits goes into the corporate coffers. Can you agree with this? Corporate profits are currently pretty high, would you not agree with that? And lastly, Corporate hiring and expansion is pretty low if not negative, correct?

So while money paid in lawsuits to corporations certainly isn't burned up, it isn't a great deal of help to the economy, broadly speaking.

Money paid to individuals and some small companies may in fact support some economic activity. But I doubt that balances against the increase prices and depression of innovation and small businesses that the current growing patent thickets represent.

Lastly, thanks for finding my story both amusing and horseshit. As I simply applied Coc's own logic to their own numbers, I am quite flattered you agree!

Re: Re: Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.

One can presume you're talking about patent trolls? Mike has often talked about them, and he;s not the only one. The definition of a patent troll is someone who buys a patent, but doesn't actually produce the product or service. They literally do nothing but sue. Any lawsuits they win, well I wouldn't say the money is literally burned, but the money is wasted. Its going to people who don't contribute to the economy.

Re: Re: Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.

Besides that one can easily bypass any filters using math, any file can be represented by an exponentiation, the problem is that it takes time to decode that today, but it may not in the future with graphics cards becoming so powerful, will the entertainment industry try to block math on the internet?

LoL

Not to mention that in the future thousands of fans could just point their cellphones at anything and create a live stream that would be 3D, that is thanks to things like Photosynth from Microsoft that since it saw it couldn't use the technology directly it open sourced maybe hopping to see what others could do with it.

That same technology can be used to reconstruct video and audio, so will the government revoke fair use?

Since any piece of image or audio can be used to reconstruct the entiret of the work if enough of it is found?

Also that technology can be used to enhance videos and audio.

What happens when people start trading frames, bits and pieces and not entire works since they won't need the entire film to be download but only pieces?

Wow, I'm not sure what kind of drugs the CoC give out, but damn if they aren't completely mindbending. I mean, seriously, that level of doublespeak, doublethink and complete lack of irony or iron is, well, staggering. I honestly don't know how they still bumble on.

You don't need ProtectIP - you need the NHS

You don't need new laws or reformed old laws, what the US needs is the NHS.

Drugs in the UK are (in the main) very cheap or free depending on whether you're employed or not, so pretty much everyone goes to their NHS doctor and gets their NHS prescription.

As a result we don't have UK citizens dying because they can't afford overpriced drugs and suffering from ever more draconian laws.

The extremely sad thing is that big pharma has been lobbying successive UK governments in an effort to destroy the NHS completely, so that they can impose the same horrible, overpriced, unwanted US system on the UK.

There may be a chance that the UK will join the US in ridiculous scenarios like the ProtectIP law, if the UK conservative government has its way - and dismantles the NHS because big pharma needs the cash.

Then imagine your customers downloading your photos from a website that stole your best images, posted them online and profited from either sales of your photos or advertising revenue from the attraction of your photos.

You mean like Twitpic's (I think it was twitpic someone burn me at the stake if i was mistaken) terms of service?

Can we just trademark, copyright, patent the CoC business model and sue them out of existence?
Sounds like an awesome use of Kickstarter.... raising funds to remove the real blocks to innovation in the country.

Americans need access on legit online pharmacies

Thanks for shedding more light on the "rogue pharmacy" issue in relation to PROTECT IP and these Chamber of Commerce scare tactics. It's true that "The people seeking alternatives are those priced out of the market -- due in large part to the ridiculously high prices set on drugs..."

RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. We hear from people every day who rely on legitimate, international online pharmacies to access their needed meds at affordable prices. Our website includes safety tips for ordering Rx drugs online.

The Coalition is encouraging consumers to speak out on behalf of access to affordable medicine by sending letters to President Obama and Congress to voice their concern about PROTECT IP. For more information, visit www.RxRights.org.